[governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header)

[Adam Peake]

>At 3:48 PM -0400 9/7/07, veni markovski wrote:
>>At 12:31 9/7/2007  -0700, you wrote:
>>>The ads must be well-designed and properly placed to be effective.  My call
>>>is for effective ads, not just any old ads.
>>
>>Then Adam Peake should respond to this ;)
>
>I'll be interested if he does.
>
>The ad that he provided as an example appears to be incoherent when one
>evaluates the combination of audience targeting, strategic messaging and
>media placement (these considerations are completely interdependent and
>cannot be separated from one another -- they must be evaluated as a
>package).


Dan,

Where would you suggest the Nominating Committee placed the ad for 
positions, how would you have written it differently?

Note, the purpose was to encourage people to apply for positions the 
NomCom had to fill, not conduct outreach for ICANN, not to increase 
awareness.  FWIW the ad wasn't a great success, but was a worthwhile 
experiment.  There's a bit of background explain this in the 
committee's report <http://nomcom.icann.org/2005-2006-report.pdf> 
page 20.



>Anyone who has ever worked at an authoritative level in the advertising or
>marketing profession (like, say, at an ad agency in a creative/strategic
>role, or perhaps in the publishing/ad-sales/marketing department of a print
>periodical [not the editorial department], or perhaps even in a media
>placement service) would recognize this example as systematically
>unprofessional (as long as they were brought up to speed on the full
>details of ICANN's activities and the specific goal of such an ad).
>


Basic content of the ad was agreed by the NomCom and finalized with 
the help of staff from a media agency ICANN uses.  The agency also 
advised on placement (Economist considered best, a well read 
international mag, used by many large international organizations for 
similar types of advert).  Thoughts on improvements very welcome.



>
>>>Bottom line: This example does not prove that there is no audience for
>>>ICANN's work, only that the ad was flawed.
>>
>>You see, the problem is that you can't forever deny the fact that
>>generally people are not interested in ICANN. This time you don't
>>like the ads, next time you wouldn't like the newspapers they would
>>be published at, etc., etc. While the simple fact, which Kieren
>  >mentioned will continue to be a fact.


I think many people are interested in ICANN, that's why the press 
cover it.  The one attempt at global elections brought a reasonably 
large response (considering it was not a particularly easy process, 
and if you take away anomalies such as the turnout in the Asia 
Pacific.)  But it is certainly true that few people want to volunteer 
to do work.  But if you look at most standards making processes (ITU, 
IETF, ATIS) they face the same problems, when it comes down to people 
doing sustained work (i.e. drafting) the numbers are very few and 
often the same people.

Adam



>This "simple fact" appears never to have been properly tested in the first
>place, at least according to the evidence of the ad presented here.  If the
>whole ad process is executed properly and professionally, then I won't
>object if the response continues to be weak.  But as long as the ad process
>continues to be similarly unprofessional, you really can't tell anything
>about the audience response.  It's as if you spoke to someone
>unintelligibly, and interpreted a non-response as stupidity or lack of
>interest instead of your failure to communicate.
>
>I will only complain when the process is flawed.  This example was clearly
>flawed, and any competent advertising professionals can confirm it for you,
>if they know enough about ICANN and the policy domain it genuinely
>addresses (as opposed to the policy domain it clams to address officially).
>
>
>The point I'm trying to make here is that if people knew that ICANN was
>making policy that will affect things they care about deeply like freedom
>of expression and personal privacy, etc., there would be a much higher
>likelihood of expanding interest in ICANN's work to more of the general
>public.
>
>If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical" organization
>that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy
>organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible policy
>ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response.  I mean, why
>does a "technical" organization even have an "intellectual property
>constituency" (in addition to the BC) in the first place?  If it has that,
>how about adding a "personal privacy constituency" (in addition to the
>NCUC) or a "free expression constituency" etc., etc.?
>
>The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is not
>of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a
>more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public.
>
>If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public
>policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much more
>attention from the general public.  In a strange way I suspect that ICANN
>doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does
>want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self
>image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get that
>attention.
>
>This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either intentional
>or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public
>input into policy making that the general public is increasingly interested
>in.
>
>"Is you is, or is you ain't" a *general public policy* organization, ICANN?
>
>This confusion of mission and identity is at the core of all of these
>problems.  And frankly, if this isn't sorted out then whoever designs the
>ad campaigns doesn't have the full ability to put together an effective
>general-public ad campaign, because superiors would be constraining (and
>importantly distorting and thus undermining) the message they would allow
>to be included in any ads.
>
>This a "double-bind" situation, and it is systematically dysfunctional.  It
>is quite possible that the failure of the execution of the ad campaign is
>simply a reflection of that institutional dysfunction, systematically
>obstructing the professionalism of the ad campaign.
>
>Dan
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance